Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

That's what I find really disconnecting here. It's like the guy was out playing the role of anarchist internet activist going against the man, but then completely freaked his #### when it turned out that the man was actually powerful and intent on maintaining the status quo of his power and authority in the world.

I think part of the difference there is that MLK wasn't clinically depressed.

It's part of the unavoidable essence of adversarial proceedings that neither party will tend to negotiate with itself. Both sides will take extreme positions at the outset. Indeed, it's done here in argument with practically every post.

I'm involved in civil litigation, and every now and then a businessman unfamiliar with how lawyers negotiate, will get honestly pissed off and walk out the door without bothering to counter an opening offer (or counteroffer) feeling either that the two sides are simply too far apart or that the other side is not negotiating in good faith.

Sometimes you are wiling to initially offer "X" and you tell the other side's atty that, and he'll say "I can't relay that, he won't counter, he'll walk"
and you say, "It's not our last/highest final offer"
he'll say, "I know that, but it's still too low for me to work off of, he' already doesn't think your client is negotiating in good faith, why do you think WE'RE (us lawyers) are here?"

and then you start wondering if the other lawyer is bluffing or not.

I usually represent Banks and Insurers, contrary to what the general public thinks, most time, at least initially, they will offer better terms if you don't have a lawyers than if you do- a good part of that is familiarity with how lawyers negotiate- they know lawyers tend to overshoot, so they will preemptively counter that...

More details are emerging about Nehemiah Griego, the 15-year-old suspected gunman accused of shooting his father, mother, and three siblings to death with an AR-15 — and they add up to a gruesome picture of a teenager with a van packed with guns and a plan to shoot up his local Walmart in New Mexico. Here's what we've learned since the shooting early on Saturday:

Police have released the names of the victims:

Greg Griego 51, a former pastor with Calvary Church in Albuquerque, his wife Sara Greigo 40, and 9-year-old Zephania Griego, 5-year-old Jael Griego, and 2-year-old Angelina Griego.
Nehemiah Griego, Greg and Sarah's home-schooled son, shot his mother and his brothers in their beds multiple times at around 1 a.m. Saturday and then waited for his father, police said. There were 10 Griego children, but only the youngest were home on Friday night.

"[A]uthorities believe Nehemiah then put several loaded weapons, including the assault rifle, in the family van with the plan to drive to the nearest Walmart, gun down more people and eventually die in a shootout with police," report The Albuquerque Journal's Jeff Proctor and Patrick Lohmann. The Journal also reports that Griego called a friend before carrying out the rest of his plan, and that the friend got Griego to meet him at the church where Griego's father was a pastor.

The two guns used in the shooting — an AR-15 assault rifle and a .22 caliber pistol — seem to have belonged to Griego's parents. Griego "had a minor disagreement with his mother on Friday night," The Journal reports, adding:

Authorities believe Nehemiah’s parents owned the guns. The weapons had been stored in a closet, not in a gun safe. They also believe Nehemiah may have had violent fantasies including killing and murder-suicide scenarios for much of his life.

And don't blame video games, because Griego was not allowed to play them. Again, from Proctor and Lohmann's Journal reporting:

Another neighbor said Nehemiah wanted to be a soldier. Although he always wore Army clothing and camouflage, Nehemiah wasn’t allowed to play violent video games, the neighbor said, since the boy’s parents didn’t allow anything “dirty or violent” and limited TV watching.

I hadn't heard this story, so I googled his name. One of the top links goes to the freeper thread about this shooting. I'm sure you'd all be surprised to learn that in an incident involving five dead people and a likely mentally ill 15 year old, the real victims are the people who post on Free Republic.

And don't blame video games, because Griego was not allowed to play them. Again, from Proctor and Lohmann's Journal reporting:

Another neighbor said Nehemiah wanted to be a soldier. Although he always wore Army clothing and camouflage, Nehemiah wasn’t allowed to play violent video games, the neighbor said, since the boy’s parents didn’t allow anything “dirty or violent” and limited TV watching.

Am acquaintance of mine once told me that one of the many studies that failed to find a link between video games and shootings found that the only link they could come up with was that the shooters were predominantly devout Christians. Never saw the study myself, so take it for what it's worth. This was a few years ago, so before any of the recent shootings, but they do seem to be falling into the same pattern.

Wow... that was definitely a "I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party" type inaugural.

I always figured, going back to 2007/2008 -- Obama was a centrist/pragmatist who could come off as a true liberal when he had to. I still think he's a lot more center than he is left, but that was most definitely a left-center (not center-left) inaugural.

Still, that's what he ran as, it's what the 'base' that reelected him has wanted for 4 years, and it's been one of the primary complaints Democratic opposition has had about him (that he's too ready to 'compromise', that he lacks sufficiently ironclad progressive principles, etc).

I personally think he's trying to pivot here into 'legacy mode'... I think the genius of Reagan is that, despite running during the 80 primary as a conservative -- by GE and by the time he assumed office, he quite masterfully was able to cloak his conservative principles as less of an 'ideological' agenda -- but more of a mainstream, non-ideological vision of just "good government"... In effect, I think he really DID make the general public view the country as being 'center-right', as in, that's where the national fulcrum should rest. There were plenty of policy changes to support that -- but ultimately, he re-positioned the fulcrum.

I believe very much that Obama sounds like he's looking to do the same -- re-position that national fulcrum... there's a ton in this speech to support that -- gay rights, defense of the very concept of entitlement programs, etc.

As a liberal, I say "bully!". As a pragmatic observer, I say "good luck with that;-))

I agree that Reagan moved the entire spectrum to the right. When people go off on those Democrats, I want to point out that the Democratic party is really just Republican lite. The DP has to seriously reinvent itself. It's hold, such as it is, is contingent, and tenuous and temporary, if it stays as it is. I really don't like it, but I absolutely loathe the face of the Republican Party.

my wife tells me chis mathews compared this to president lincoln's second inaugural

that's an absurd comparison

Of course -

Lincoln's second inaugural did have to start healing a nation that wasn't just having an ideological debate -- but had actively been killing more than half a million of its fellow citizens for 4 years... To "preserve the union" -- Lincoln had to set the tone that the Union was being restored, not a renegade portion of it subjugated (even if, to some extent, that's what had to and to some extent, did, happen). He had to restore the nation - and even then, that would take time... there's a good historical case to be made that it didn't finally come to pass until the Spanish-American war... that that was the point when, from coast to coast, we were all finally "Americans" again.

Whatever ideological pervades our times -- I would hope we can ALL recognize the difference between 600k dead on battlefields and various blogs and networks calling 'the other side' names.

FWIW - and yeah, I'm partisan - we have heard Boehner, McConnell, et al saying that Obama "needs to lead"... well... OK -- this speech was him doing exactly that. They just don't agree with the direction and philosophy of where he's leading. But - he won reelection (and won it on essentially the same terms of this speech), he's the President, and "leading" can't be wholly telling his own party and base to pipe down.

there's a good historical case to be made that it didn't finally come to pass until the Spanish-American war... that that was the point when, from coast to coast, we were all finally "Americans" again.

charles krauthammer saying the president just declared war on conservatives.

i think charles is about 4 years behind the curve

I guess I'd say that he tried playing it nice... 'Grand bargains' in which he, much to Democratic chagrin, did put left/progressive sacred cows on the table, etc... and it really got him nowhere and got him nothing except, well, baseline things the nation needed -- i.e., the original sequester that got conservatives (as Boehner said) "98% of what he wanted"... Obama "got" the debt ceiling increase, which was hardly an ideological desire of any Democrat - merely a sort of baseline thing that any President needs because, well, it's disastrous to undertake a "default by choice". I suppose he also got a payroll tax cut - which is most definitely a fine, targeted stimulus towards low and middle income folks - but it's also a tax cut and also a revenue cut against a dearly held Democratic-loved entitlement.

We can say it's cynical - Obama's doing this now because he's got more election campaigns to worry about... we can take the view of progressives - many of whom would say that Obama has "finally learned his lesson, you can't compromise with these guys"...

I just think it's a matter of Obama telling the Krauthammers of the world, "Hey, guess what... as you've been pointing out - I'm not a conservative."

Like I said above - the GOP should have been careful what it was asking for over the last month when they kept saying "Obama needs to 'lead'" -- well, now he's leading... did they really expect he would "lead" where they wanted to be led?

charles krauthammer saying the president just declared war on conservatives.

i think charles is about 4 years behind the curve

These sort of statements are silly. Obama has declared war on conservatives by trying to pass the Heritage Foundation's healthcare plan and refusing to allow any of the Bush administration who tortured people to stand trial.

***

I guess I don't get the chatter about the inaugural. I thought it was a pretty decent speech. I liked the point about takers/vs. taking risks, because I think that's a good argument and the structure was articulated well.

i have to rest after seeing the doc all morning so was working to pass the time

I don't mind you posting opinions on the inaugural. I agree that the stuff about Lincoln was silly. I mind the rhetoric that implied that Obama had somehow declared war on conservatives. If you're going to make a statement like that, you could at least back it up with an argument rather than a flat assertion. I think it's sort of overblown, but whatevs.

(side note: I realized that your statement could also be taken as a joke at Krauthammer's expense, if so, I apologize for misunderstanding.)

That is to say - his electoral strength comes more so than almost any other Democrat from urban strongholds. All those are already solid D seats.

I suspect he doesn't have Clinton's suburban strength...

2014 will 'get in the way' for Congress -- but it's clear to me that Obama will really have much of a role.

I suspect a lot depends on whether his approval stays in the mid-50s (or goes higher or lower) - and that, I think will be wholly a function of the economy. If 2013 improves upon 2012, then I suspect higher. If 2013 looks more like 2011, then lower. If 2013 is basically 2012, I think he probably stays about where he is.

Hell of a weekend in DC. I think sleep took up about 25% of my time while work took up the rest. Never seen bumper to bumper traffic at 4am anywhere besides in NYC so that was a first for me. At times it looked like the ratio of security forces to normal citizens was 1:1.

Interesting interview here. It is probably within our current technological capability to clone a Neanderthal. It will almost certainly be within our capability in a couple of decades. Ought we to do it?

Interesting interview here. It is probably within our current technological capability to clone a Neanderthal. It will almost certainly be within our capability in a couple of decades. Ought we to do it?

It's not the fact that he was charged that I find disturbing -- he appears to have been guilty of something -- it's the zealousness and overcharging of the prosecution in this case that's the problem.

We're in agreement here, with the caveat that I am in no way whatsoever surprised that entrenched power in the world will respond with asymmetrical force to protect and extend their power in the world, even when the power at hand seems petty and secondary at best to outside observers.

Just watched the video of the inaugural speech. Great laundry list of things any sane person would like to see accomplished, but I doubt that a week from now I'll remember what he said.

As for that "war on conservatives" BS, today's "conservatives"** simply live to be offended by anything and everything that Obama does, and there's absolutely nothing he can say or do that will ever get them off his back. It's probably going to take at least 12 more years out of the White House for them to get the message.

1852. Morty Causa Posted: January 21, 2013 at 02:55 PM (#4351862)
Sufficiently hot. Or maybe not, since they went extinct.

You can make a decent argument that a portion of modern humans mated with with some Neanderthals and basically 'bred' them out. Inter-species reproduction isn't unheard of. No reason to think modern humans are above it.

#1782 Nothing unusual about activists not wanting to pay the price of civil disobedience. King is not the norm.

Acknowledged. But I'd phrase that more harshly than you. Most "activists" in the world are dillitentes and trust fund babies playing at class resentment while mommy and daddy foot the bills from the bougie suburbs.

As for that "war on conservatives" BS, today's "conservatives"** simply live to be offended by anything and everything that Obama does, and there's absolutely nothing he can say or do that will ever get them off his back.

If a republican like Christie or even Jindal gets elected in 2016, I can very much see this current strain of conservative become even more frustrated since I get the sense that people who define themselves as 'Tea Partiers' and the like aren't looking to get answers and services from a well running and efficient government. They're just looking to starve the beast, and and whatever faults Christie or Jindal have, they realize that there's a role for Government and whatever 'intrusions' that might entail.

Wow... that was definitely a "I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party" type inaugural.

I always figured, going back to 2007/2008 -- Obama was a centrist/pragmatist who could come off as a true liberal when he had to. I still think he's a lot more center than he is left, but that was most definitely a left-center (not center-left) inaugural.

I strongly expect Obama to embrace more of a standard liberal agenda in the second term, rather than working as a Bush I clone in the first. Knowing you're never going to have to run for another office again in your life is liberating.

I strongly expect Obama to embrace more of a standard liberal agenda in the second term, rather than working as a Bush I clone in the first. Knowing you're never going to have to run for another office again in your life is liberating.

While I share your sentiment and your reasoning, Obama is a very long-run thinker. If he does shift to the left this term, there are two big possibilities:

a) He completes his turn as the Reagan of the left, moving the national discourse towards politics more like his own (I think this is what is happening right now.) This is doubly true if the economic recovery continues/happens on course over the next few years.

b) The economy fails to recover, Obama's agenda is largely unfinished, and his second term is remembered like George W. Bush's: a failed attempt at governing closer to the party base rather than the national center.

Even trying to promote creationism is a sign of wanting government in our lives. =P Considering that Ray Negin just got indicted for corruption last week, I'd take a little crazy and fully honest than another in a long line of crooks that pretend to speak my 'language'.

But then again, I voted for the Arnold in the recall and in 2006. A big part of that was anger at Grey Davis for incompetence, and in 2006 they ran a weak challenger.

a) He completes his turn as the Reagan of the left, moving the national discourse towards politics more like his own (I think this is what is happening right now.) This is doubly true if the economic recovery continues/happens on course over the next few years.

b) The economy fails to recover, Obama's agenda is largely unfinished, and his second term is remembered like George W. Bush's: a failed attempt at governing closer to the party base rather than the national center.

This is his current political tightrope, nicely summarized. The hue and cry from the right wings today, and in general, is little more than petulant whining about the fact that they're losing the long game. It's pretty much identical to the left during Reagan's tenure.

Most "activists" in the world are dillitentes and trust fund babies playing at class resentment while mommy and daddy foot the bills from the bougie suburbs.

That broad brush is doing you no favors here. How do these statements apply to Swartz? Why would his parents' financial status call into question the legitimacy of his beliefs and the efficacy of his actions? In terms of "mommy and daddy footing the bills"-- this is someone who could have out-earned most people on this board by age 20. I also think it's inaccurate to describe Swartz as an aspiring or self-identifying anarchist-- that's not the ideology behind the open-source or open-access movements. There may be some kinship there in terms of methods and ethos, but the motivating aim is to alter the various systems of rules that govern the flow of information. They don't want to destroy it-- the web doesn't work without rules and standards.

Okay, fair enough. I should have said "in America" rather than "in the world."

That broad brush is doing you no favors here. How do these statements apply to Swartz? Why would his parents' financial status call into question the legitimacy of his beliefs and the efficacy of his actions? In terms of "mommy and daddy footing the bills"-- this is someone who could have out-earned most people on this board by age 20. I also think it's inaccurate to describe Swartz as an aspiring or self-identifying anarchist-- that's not the ideology behind the open-source or open-access movements. There may be some kinship there in terms of methods and ethos, but the motivating aim is to alter the various systems of rules that govern the flow of information. They don't want to destroy it-- the web doesn't work without rules and standards.

They apparently want many things. And when they have to bleed for them, they piss themselves and run away.

With less snark: Swartz, an activist with depression issues, killed himself in the face of a prison sentence. That in no way disqualifies the actions or motives of other activists in the movement.

1. I haven't questioned or attempted to disqualify his actions or even his motives. I've questioned his dedication to the cause.

2. If Swartz killed himself because he was depressive, then there's a lot of piling on of blame against the (admittedly over the top) prosecutors that needs to be rescinded. If he was destined to off himself, then the prosecutors are not to blame for his death.

if so then the number of people in the world with clean hands in life by your standards is about 3

Harvey, I'm not talking about them forgetting to put the pickles on his hamburger and giving him a sad for five minutes. They were trying to unfairly throw him in jail for the majority of his adult life. It's like deliberately forcing an alcoholic to drink.

they were pushing him to admit culpability and then a plea bargain would have been agreed to. if his lawyer didn't explain that to him and his family his lawyer should be disbarred.

Which would be perfectly fine except, again, clinical depression. People with that condition are simply not capable of being rational about environmental stressors. No matter how carefully or exhaustively you explain, they aren't going to believe it.

They were trying to unfairly throw him in jail for the majority of his adult life.

"Unfairly" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. The prosecutors of the law, as hired by the state, were leveraging the law of the state to protect and preserve the status quo process of the state, against someone who intentionally broke the law of the state.

If you want to have a conversation about how amoral it is to have a state apparatus set up where this sort of leverage playing games is part and parcel to the "justice system" I'll be your best friend. But if you want to claim "unfair" action? I'm not so sure.

The calls against the Falcons in the 4th quarter yesterday were stupid and wrong. They were by the rule book, more or less, but taht simply points out the stupidity inherent in the rule book. This is similar. Swartz broke the law. The law then came down upon him with a self righteous fury that was almost certainly stupid and wrong, but well within the legal playbook of the United States of America's "justice system."

Swartz should have known the risks going in. If you want to be internet martyr, suck it up and take the body blows.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell is calling on fellow Republicans to and speak against “idiot presentations” by people like former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and the so-called birthers who insist that President Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen.

As Monday’s inaugural ceremonies got underway, Powell told ABC’s Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos that Republicans needed to “look in the mirror” instead of attacking him after he recently called out Palin and former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu for using “slave terms” like “shucking and jiving” to describe President Barack Obama.

“The Republicans have to stop buying into things that demonize the president,” he explained. “I mean, why aren’t Republican leaders shouting out about all this birther nonsense and all these other things? They’re silent. We should speak out.”

“This is the kind of intolerance that I’ve been talking about, where these idiot presentations continue to be made and you don’t see the senior leadership of the party saying, ‘No, that’s wrong,’” Powell continued. “In fact, they sometimes by not speaking out, they’re encouraging it. And the base keeps buying the stuff. And it’s killing the base of the party. I mean, 26 percent favorability rating for the party right now. It ought to be telling them something, you know?”

“So, instead of attacking me or whoever speaks like I do, look in the mirror and realize, how are we going to win the next election?”

I am not watching an hour long academic lecture on depression. Sum up.

Depression is a condition with a biological basis, and telling a person with clinical depression to "snap out of it" is like telling a diabetic to "snap out" of needing insulin.

You are trying to understand depression by comparing it to personal experiences with brief sadness that are not at all similar to the actual condition, but your lack of knowledge and appropriate context is preventing you from understanding this.

what you are asking is that the law provide a long-term backdoor for anyone seeking to avoid punishment.

the public won't support that nor should it

No, I am saying that if you intend to try and get someone to go to prison for six months, you shouldn't threaten them with a sentence of 30 years. That's grossly inappropriate. Particularly if you know that you're dealing with a person with clinical depression who as a result of that condition is not going to be capable of understanding the "message" that you are trying to send by overfiling in the first place.

1. I haven't questioned or attempted to disqualify his actions or even his motives. I've questioned his dedication to the cause.

Larry Lessig didn't seem to have any questions about Swartz's dedication to the cause. But I'm sure you have a far more qualified opinion on the subject.

The perfect does not have to be the enemy of the good. "If you're not willing to spend decades in jail, we don't want you" is not a slogan that will attract many followers.

They apparently want many things. And when they have to bleed for them, they piss themselves and run away.

I'm not sure why you responded to #1869 with "they"-- I was trying to dispel the notion that activists like Swartz are wannabe anarchists. On the previous page, you said:

That's what I find really disconnecting here. It's like the guy was out playing the role of anarchist internet activist going against the man,

This is not the online incarnation of the Black Bloc; a lot of people in these groups are on the wonkish side in their advocacy of specific policies, rather than wanting an information system that is without structure. You've very inaccurately caricatured the group you're making claims about here. A lot of these guys are programmers-- and programming depends on having a rule-bound structure to adhere to.

No, I am saying that if you intend to try and get someone to go to prison for six months, you shouldn't threaten them with a sentence of 30 years. That's grossly inappropriate.

The DA process there is: plea to six months or we'll charge you with the full docket, which carries 30 years. It's an attempt to save the state the fiscal cost of a trial by leveraging the evidence and probability of conviction into a small sentence for the accused.

Swartz refused the plea, which left him in line to go to trial, where he was likely to be found guilty and be sentenced to 2-5 years for his crimes. If Swartz couldn't afford to lose the pot and serve 2-5 years, he should have plead out. If Swartz was incapable of making a rational decision about pleading out, his counsel should have either convinced him or motioned for incompetence.

So what's the net net here? If they're depressed, they can't be tried for crimes they commit?

If they're clinically depressed, you shouldn't threaten them with sixty times as much jail time as you actually intend for them to serve, because they're pretty much axiomatically going to take it the wrong way, and it might be enough to make them kill themselves.